Two GMs Running One Game?

[charis]

So...!
I have a lot of friends, and a good chunk of them role play, so many in fact, that games are often overpopulated. I'm currently running a diceless Star Wars game with 13 players. for example...anyway, let's say two GM's decide they both want to run an Amber game together, in order to handle the larger group of people. Or, we could even say it's only 5-6 players. What do you think the drawbacks and advantages would be? What kind of campaign would you run with 2 GM's at your disposal, removing a lot of the problems with Amber having many one on one private scenes?

[finarvyn]

Frankly, it often comes down to how well the co-GMs can share the stage. I played in one campaign where one GM always pushed the other one aside at the key moments of the game. It wasn't shared well at all.

On the other hand, much of ADRP can be done with minimal GM imput. I remember Erick starting us off and then leaving the room entirely while we discussed our characters and "met each other" in character. A lot of fun gaming happened with no GM present, and so I'd say that it could work out fine having only half of a pair of GMs present.

I think that NPCs would have to be developed together and each GM have a list of their stats and abilities. At that point, running most conflicts would go pretty smoothly.

The GMs would have to agree on the main goals and motiovations for the major NPCs.

The GMs would want to call occasional "time outs" in the action to collaborate and compare notes to be sure they are on the same page.

It can work, but it takes some planning and cooperation.

[Nicephorus]

If you have two people willing to gm and that large of a group, it might be better to run two parallel games.  Two games set in the same setting at the same time.  GMs share notes and NPCs but each runs their own group.

[Bird_of_Ill_Omen]

The first Amber game I was a player in was run by a two GM team (their first Amber game also), and it worked flawlessly.  I never felt like I was getting conflicting information, nothing ever had to be done over because the GM's weren't on the same page (for instance, things like this never happened: "JULIAN had the Jewel?!  I thought CAINE had the Jewel!").

Some advantages are:

1. The GM had someone else to bounce ideas off of in developing the scenario.

2. In addition to just ideas, all the other creative work doesn't fall into one guy's lap (whether you're drawing maps, pictures, writing up speeches, writing character backgrounds...whatever physical prep work the GM does -- unless you're the winging it kind of GM).

3. It's a pretty special moment when you get to role-play against two NPC's who are actually being played by two different people.  It's a much more spontaneous energy than when you've got one GM who is flipping back and forth between NPC's.  As a player you get a more real feeling that the NPC's might mess each other up -- which is a good feeling.  And in this way, your GM (both of them) can be surprised by what an NPC does as well since the other GM is controlling him at that moment -- that's nice too.

4. When you have two GM's running two different groups of players, you get the opportunity for your two storylines to converge in more immediate ways instead of having to wait while the GM shifts groups to catch the other players up to where you are.


The disadvantages I think are all tied up with how the two GM's work together.  I would hope that as long as they agree on the kind of game they want to run, and the kind of story they want to tell, then they'll be in good shape.  After that, they just need to make sure they're working off the same notes, and maintain clear communication when something unexpected happens during play.

Given a choice, I would prefer playing in a game with two GM's instead of just one...especially Amber where players are more apt to be off doing separate things and exploring shared stories but from different sides.

[gabriel_ss4u]

The first Amber game I was a player in was run by a two GM team (their first Amber game also), and it worked flawlessly.  I never felt like I was getting conflicting information, nothing ever had to be done over because the GM's weren't on the same page (for instance, things like this never happened: "JULIAN had the Jewel?!  I thought CAINE had the Jewel!").

Some advantages are:

1. The GM had someone else to bounce ideas off of in developing the scenario.

2. In addition to just ideas, all the other creative work doesn't fall into one guy's lap (whether you're drawing maps, pictures, writing up speeches, writing character backgrounds...whatever physical prep work the GM does -- unless you're the winging it kind of GM).

3. It's a pretty special moment when you get to role-play against two NPC's who are actually being played by two different people.  It's a much more spontaneous energy than when you've got one GM who is flipping back and forth between NPC's.  As a player you get a more real feeling that the NPC's might mess each other up -- which is a good feeling.  And in this way, your GM (both of them) can be surprised by what an NPC does as well since the other GM is controlling him at that moment -- that's nice too.

4. When you have two GM's running two different groups of players, you get the opportunity for your two storylines to converge in more immediate ways instead of having to wait while the GM shifts groups to catch the other players up to where you are.


The disadvantages I think are all tied up with how the two GM's work together.  I would hope that as long as they agree on the kind of game they want to run, and the kind of story they want to tell, then they'll be in good shape.  After that, they just need to make sure they're working off the same notes, and maintain clear communication when something unexpected happens during play.

Given a choice, I would prefer playing in a game with two GM's instead of just one...especially Amber where players are more apt to be off doing separate things and exploring shared stories but from different sides.

All good points.
I've done Amber with co-GMs and it works. The GMs HAVE to mesh well together.
I've bragged enough about my GM on here, but when the 2 of us get together, we can kick some ass co-GMing

We've done it for other games; Champions mostly besides Amber.

[AshenHaze]

Due to the positive comments in this thread I've started planning a possible TWO gm game of Amber.  I'll be utilizing my wife as the second GM, and she'll be role playing the majority of the female NPC's.  The primary advantage I see though, is that splitting the party will be easier to handle, and interactions w/ multiple NPC's simultaneously and interactions between NPC's will feel more natural.  (I hate that feeling of talking to myself)  Hoping it will work out.  If anybody has any advice  I'd be happy to hear it.

[RPGPundit]

I do think that the only way this can be viable is if you do one of two things; either:

a. You have each DM running an entirely different area of the setting, with total autonomy in that area, and extremely frequent communication with each other on the subject

or

b. You still have one GM being the seniormost figure, the one who decides which plot developments take place.

Also, it is a good idea to divide the playing of NPCs between GMs, rather than skipping back and forth in playing them, because otherwise if you did the latter their presentation might end up being uneven (where you and the other GM interpret the same character in slightly different ways, creating confusion for the players in terms of being able to understand and predict the NPC's motivations and behaviours).

RPGPundit

[gabriel_ss4u]

Sometimes the story writes itself.

The 2 GMs have to have a synch, a way of playing off each other and going with the flow.

Both RPGPundit's suggestions are fair. They will help keep the tentative order you'll need to run a scenario through to fruition.  If the other GM as an idea of what's to happen later (key events) and keeps communication up w/ other GM, it is totally doable. I've done it for yrs.